We performed a comparison between Perimeter 81 and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Perimeter 81 offers single sign-on, multiple networks, a user-friendly interface, fast and secure VPN, reliable connection, privacy, efficient customer service, mobile and desktop support, a lightweight mobile app, and implementation of SD-WAN and zero trust access. pfSense is praised for its ability to block IP addresses, user-friendly dashboards, open-source nature, scanning and filtering capabilities, stability, customization abilities, cost-effectiveness, availability of plugins and add-ons, simplicity, flexibility, and scalability. Both options provide a range of useful features for users.
Perimeter 81 has room for improvement in terms of specifying various sites, incorporating a separate login option for bypassing website logins, allowing customization of interface colors, enhancing the user interface, providing notifications for session timeouts, and enhancing network traffic distribution. pfSense could benefit from the addition of instructional videos, a more user-friendly web interface, stability improvements, integration with a mobile app, and enhanced reporting and graphing features.
Service and Support: Perimeter 81 receives positive feedback for their efficient and useful customer service, while pfSense's support garners mixed opinions, with some users praising it and others noting its limited assistance and reliance on online communities.
Ease of Deployment: Perimeter 81 is praised for its straightforward and user-friendly initial setup, although it may become more complex in a hybrid environment. pfSense is generally easy to set up, but some users recommend clearer guidance or a configuration wizard for improved usability.
Pricing: Perimeter 81 has a flexible setup cost based on specific needs. In contrast, pfSense provides a free open-source solution and offers paid support. The pricing for pfSense varies depending on the setup.
ROI: Perimeter 81 offers the opportunity for a favorable return on investment through various benefits such as lower supply expenses, enhanced engineering, decreased repair costs, and improved product stability. pfSense is highly regarded for its cost efficiency and significant savings, making it a valuable option for businesses operating with limited financial resources.
Comparison Results: Perimeter 81 is the preferred product over pfSense. It is praised for its easy and intuitive setup process, single sign-on capabilities, multiple networks feature, user-friendly interface, fast and secure VPN, and efficient customer service. Perimeter 81 offers a more user-friendly and efficient experience according to the reviews.
"I really like the captive portal feature for our guest network. It has nice VLAN features in terms of separating our network. The anti-virus is also good."
"The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that."
"Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"We use the FortiGate Sandbox to detect zero-day vulnerabilities, such as anomalies or malware, that are unknown and have not yet been discovered."
"The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"It performs very well."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well. pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services."
"It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application."
"It is a very good solution for enterprises that need a VPN for their employees. It is the best way to provide a remote work facility to employees at a very low cost. Other solutions that I have had in the past were very expensive. Enterprises don't always have that kind of money to invest."
"It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"Distributing the agent was very simple, allowing us to enforce security posture on our devices (i.e. S1, Disk-encryption, etc.)."
"Their split tunneling feature has been very valuable to our company since implementing the Perimeter 81 solution."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"Scaling Perimeter 81 was easy to do."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"The ease of use not only translates to quick adoption rates - it also ensures that our employees remain compliant with our cybersecurity protocols, enhancing the overall security posture of our organization."
"The feature that I have found to be most valuable is the reputation that the company has regarding privacy. Nowadays, this is critical, especially when you do all of your work online."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"With the reports, you can see it, and you can get good feelings so upper management can go, "Oh, wow. That looks pretty." However, it's very basic."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"Fortinet should focus on enhancing the capabilities of FortiGate by consolidating its various products, such as FortiGate Cloud, FortiManager, and FortiAnalyzer."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"The UI could be improved."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"The user interface could be improved."
"Fortinet could improve the windows opener or the virtual IP solutions for opening windows. The virtual IP settings need improvement as firewalls are trending in new development directions."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus."
"The security could be improved."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"Also, simplifying the rules for the GeoIP. Making it simpler to understand would be an improvement."
"I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic."
"More documentation would be great, especially on new features because sometimes, when new features come out, you don't get to understand them right off the bat. You have to really spend a lot of time understanding them. So, more documentation would be awesome."
"A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
"It would be nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"One of our challenges is ensuring the security of our cloud-based operations."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"There are a few areas where the solution could be improved. For instance, we sometimes encounter connectivity issues, which can be problematic. Recently, I experienced a connectivity issue while trying to move to Azure. Connectivity issues can be quite frustrating."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"I would suggest adding more networking and security features that allow more customization within their platform."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 11th in Firewalls with 22 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Cisco Umbrella. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Perimeter 81 report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
